Accelerating the elimination of viral hepatitis: a Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission.

Viral hepatitis is a major public health threat and a leading cause of death worldwide. Annual mortality from viral hepatitis is similar to that of other major infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis. Highly effective prevention measures and treatments have made the global elimination of viral hepatitis a realistic goal, endorsed by all WHO member states. Ambitious targets call for a global reduction in hepatitis-related mortality of 65% and a 90% reduction in new infections by 2030. This Commission draws together a wide range of expertise to appraise the current global situation and to identify priorities globally, regionally, and nationally needed to accelerate progress. We identify 20 heavily burdened countries that account for over 75% of the global burden of viral hepatitis. Key recommendations include a greater focus on national progress towards elimination with support given, if necessary, through innovative financing measures to ensure elimination programmes are fully funded by 2020. In addition to further measures to improve access to vaccination and treatment, greater attention needs to be paid to access to affordable, high-quality diagnostics if testing is to reach the levels needed to achieve elimination goals. Simplified, decentralised models of care removing requirements for specialised prescribing will be required to reach those in need, together with sustained efforts to tackle stigma and discrimination. We identify key examples of the progress that has already been made in many countries throughout the world, demonstrating that sustained and coordinated efforts can be successful in achieving the WHO elimination goals.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Alternative Antiviral Strategies for the Treatment of HBeAg-Positive and HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Seven drugs are licensed for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the United Kingdom. Which initial treatment, secondary therapy, and whether antivirals should be given alone or in combination are questions of considerable uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this model was to undertake a comprehensive economic evaluation of all antiviral treatments for CHB to recommend the most cost-effective therapeutic sequence. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of all clinically relevant antiviral treatment sequences for nucleos(t)ide-naive adults with hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative CHB. Relative rates of HBeAg seroconversion and viral suppression were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Data on mortality, antiviral drug resistance, durability of response, adverse events, and costs were obtained from published literature. Results are reported in terms of lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and expected net benefit. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, pegylated interferon alpha-2a (peg-IFN α-2a) followed by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was most effective and cost-effective in HBeAg-positive patients, with a cost of £7488 per QALY gained compared with no treatment. In HBeAg-negative patients, peg-IFN α-2a followed by entecavir was most effective and cost-effective, with a cost of £6981 per QALY gained. The model was robust to a wide range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Peg-IFN α-2a followed by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir is the most effective antiviral treatment strategy for people with both variants of CHB. At a cost of less than £10,000 per QALY gained, these sequences are considered cost-effective in England and Wales. The results of this analysis were used to inform 2013 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline recommendations.

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in resource-constrained settings: expert panel consensus.

Most of the estimated 350 million people with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection live in resource-constrained settings. Up to 25% of those persons will die prematurely of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or cirrhosis. Universal hepatitis B immunization programmes that target infants will have an impact on HBV-related deaths several decades after their introduction. Antiviral agents active against HBV are available; treatment of HBV infection in those who need it has been shown to reduce the risk of HCC and death. It is estimated that 20-30% of persons with HBV infection could benefit from treatment. However, drugs active against HBV are not widely available or utilized in persons infected with HBV. Currently recommended antiviral agents used for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection do not adequately suppress HBV, which is of great concern for the estimated 10% of the HIV-infected persons in Africa who are co-infected with HBV. Progressive liver disease has been shown to occur in co-infected persons whose HBV infection is not suppressed. In view of these concerns, an informal World Health Organization consultation of experts concluded that: chronic HBV is a major public health problem in emerging nations; all HIV-infected persons should be screened for HBV infection; HIV/HBV co-infected persons should be treated with therapies active against both viruses and that reduce the risk of resistance; standards for the management of chronic HBV infection should be adapted to resource-constrained settings. In addition, a research agendum was developed focusing on issues related to prevention and treatment of chronic HBV in resource-constrained settings.

Cost-utility analysis of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) versus alternative nucleos(t)ides from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was used to calculate costs and benefits of nucleos(t)ide strategies in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and HBeAg-negative patients with hepatitis B virus mono-infection and compensated liver disease. The model included 18 disease states representing CHB progression. Quality-of-life data and costs for severe disease states were based on published studies, while monitoring costs for other disease states were based on expert opinion. Transition probabilities for movements between states were based on a meta-analysis, clinical trials, and natural history studies. RESULTS: First-line TDF generated the highest net benefits of all 211 nucleos(t)ide strategies evaluated at a threshold of £ 20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. First-line TDF cost £ 19,084/QALY gained compared with giving lamivudine (LAM) first-line and switching to TDF when LAM resistance occurs. First-line TDF was also more effective and less costly than first-line entecavir (ETV), and showed extended dominance over first-line adefovir and strategies reserving adefovir, ETV, or combination therapy until after LAM resistance develops. For patients who have developed LAM resistance, TDF was also the most cost-effective treatment, generating greater net benefits than any other second-line strategy. CONCLUSIONS: First-line TDF is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with CHB at a £ 20,000 to £ 30,000/QALY ceiling ratio, costing £ 19,084/QALY gained compared with the next best alternative.